Evidence of meeting #131 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It does not interfere with business. It's private members' business.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, I ask that we not come out of suspension until we have a copy of the motion.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We'll suspend for a good 10 minutes to allow that to occur as well.
The committee stands suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We'll now resume.
We'll turn to the legislative clerk, who, in his infinite wisdom, has further insights to share with us.
Mr. Legislative Clerk, you have the floor.
Jacques Maziade
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
During the suspension, I was reading pages 1159 and 1160 in the book. It's the chapter concerning a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill. I want to bring to the attention of the committee that it says that if the committee reports on the motion in relation to Standing Order 97.1:
It may happen that the committee presents its report prior to the expiry of the 60-sitting-day limit,
—and this is the case—
but the House does not make a final decision on the committee's recommendation until after this deadline has passed.
It says further that:
Since the committee has met the requirement of the Standing Order by presenting a report, the bill is not deemed reported back to the House. Instead, the bill remains with the committee until the House comes to a final decision on the committee's recommendation that the bill not proceed further.
I wanted to bring that to the committee for consideration.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Forgive me for not being so great on some of these things, but that means it would go to the House, we'd have a concurrence debate, and the concurrence debate would have to be voted upon. If the vote was to support it, then the bill would come back to the two hours of debate in the House.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
As I understand it, we make one report to the House under S. O. 97.1. The bill's been amended, and it's been essentially nullified. We either report the amended, null bill back to the House or we adopt Mr. Oliphant's motion and report that back to the House, not both.
Is that correct? It is. Yes, that's what I suspected, because it says "or".
That means that if we adopt this motion that Mr. Oliphant has presented, there will be no bill reported back to the House. The bill will remain here in committee. At some point, somebody could potentially move concurrence in this. The House will have a debate on it and either adopt the motion or negative the motion.
If the House adopts the motion, then this bill—in committee, I assume—is dissolved, and then we move on. It has the added benefit for the government, I would say, that instead of having to wait 30 or so parliamentary days for the private members' business calendar to move, allowing for the government to give its explanation as to why it negatived the bill, the government could do so at a much earlier opportunity by moving concurrence in this report. That would be this motion.
Is that correct, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Yes. As I understand it, that's correct.
Thank you for your prescience and your interpretive skills, Mr. Chong.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On a point of order, I don't think that is of any advantage to government or opposition. I think that is due process. I would counsel us not to say that somehow the government would gain from that or lose from it. I don't think opposition would gain from it or lose it from it. It is due process.
Thank you.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I'd just like to express my opinion on the matter.
We have to make a choice. We can send the bill back to the House to be defeated, or we can express, through Mr. Oliphant's motion, the concerns raised by certain witnesses and members of this committee regarding its content and instruct the government to respond in one way or another. The general message that needs to be sent, in my opinion, is that the current situation cannot simply be allowed to continue. I would hope that the government will take note of this.
It's certain that, if we simply send the bill back to the House to be defeated, we won't have the opportunity to send this message to the government. Mr. Oliphant's motion gives us a golden opportunity to do just that. With all its qualities and faults, this motion is the best option we have to make our point.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just want to maybe push back a little bit on my colleague Mr. Bergeron on this. While I agree with him that I do want the opportunity for us to talk about why this bill didn't pass and why it also illustrates some of the needs that the government needs to address, my challenge is that we already do have that opportunity within private members' business, when there will be two additional hours of debate in which we are able to talk about why we can or cannot support this bill. In that place, we can also talk about why...or what the government needs to do to address the challenges that this bill attempts to address.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I would prefer the option under Standing Order 97.1 because I actually think that committee work is important. I think that if we allow it just to go either unreported, as deemed reported or without a clear statement from this committee, we're not valuing the committee work.
I think that we have the advantage of having had a number of meetings with many witnesses who told us things. I think that the House would like to hear from us, not just as individuals speaking in the House but because I think it values our work.
As such, I will now move this motion. I know I'm jumping the queue, but I believe it's in order for me to move this motion:
That the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, recommend that the House of Commons do not proceed further with Bill C-353, an act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, because the overwhelming majority of witnesses appearing before the committee have raised serious concerns with this legislation, have indicated that it is not necessary at this time and that it may have unintended consequences. This does not negate the objectives of this bill, and the committee draws the concerns the bill is attempting to address to the attention of the government;
That the chair present the report to the House.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
The first explanation the legislative clerk gave us was that there would be a report to the House on the bill and that there would also be the report arising from the motion presented by Mr. Oliphant. Now, as I understand it, that's no longer the scenario.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
That's correct, Mr. Bergeron.
Does anyone else want to speak to this? No.
Having given an opportunity to speak to everyone, at this juncture I would just like to thank the two legislative clerks.
Do we want to proceed with the vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Okay. Let's do it on a recorded division.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
At this juncture, I would like to thank the two legislative clerks, who have been very helpful.
I think it's also fair that we thank the committee clerk as well, who did most of the hard work today, making sure that there were recorded divisions for most of the votes.
Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like you to enlighten me on the agenda for Thursday.
According to the schedule, we should be undertaking the study on Latin America. The problem is that we don't have a work plan. I don't know what stage we're at with the Iran report. I think, in the case of this report, that our instructions have not even been given to our analysts. I also don't know what's happening with the report on Palestine.
I'm a bit confused regarding what's scheduled for Thursday.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
On the report on the two-state solution, as was indicated previously, we will be hearing from the analysts on December 5.... I'm sorry; what day would that make it?
